Judge upholds PA voter ID law

Posted 9/30/09

PENNSYLVANIA – A Pennsylvania judge rejected a challenge to the state’s controversial new voter ID law today. Lawyers for the groups bringing the suit, the Public Interest Law Center of …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Judge upholds PA voter ID law

Posted

PENNSYLVANIA – A Pennsylvania judge rejected a challenge to the state’s controversial new voter ID law today. Lawyers for the groups bringing the suit, the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia (PILCOP), the Advancement Project, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, and the Washington, DC, law firm of Arnold & Porter, had argued that the law puts up unconstitutional barriers to the fundamental right to vote and threatens to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people without valid ID. The groups plan to appeal the judge’s decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

In a lengthy opinion Judge Robert Simpson wrote, “Petitioners established that to the extent Act 18 will operate to prevent the casting or counting of in-person votes of qualified electors in the general election, those electors would suffer irreparable harm irreparable harm that cannot be adequately compensated by money damages.

“Petitioners did not establish, however, that the disenfranchisement was immediate or inevitable. On the contrary, the more credible evidence on this issue was that offered through Commonwealth witnesses. I was convinced that efforts by the Department of State, the Department of Health, PennDot and other commonwealth agencies and interested groups will fully educate the public and DOS, PennDOT and the secretaries of those agencies will comply with the mandates of Section of the Election Code. Further, I was convinced that Act 18 will be implemented by Commonwealth agencies in a non-partisan, even-handed manner.”

Jennifer Clarke, executive director, Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, said in a conference call with reporters, “The key to this opinion was the standard that was applied to a law the burdens a right to vote. We argued that the court should apply a strict scrutiny standard, which is a standard that requires the state to show a a compelling state interest that is narrowly addressed by the law. We argued that the right to vote is fundamental. The opinion did not use that standard, instead it applied a much more lenient standard that gives the legislature lots of deference.”

[soundcloud:http://soundcloud.com/fbmayer/pa-voter-id-jennifer-clarke]

When asked about similar cases in Missouri and Wisconsin Penda Hair, co-director of the Advancement Project, said “In Missouri there’s a very clear precedent that under the Missouri state constitution that voting is a fundamental right and any burden on the right to vote must survive strict scrutiny. There are also recent decisions in Wisconsin applying state law and either applying strict scrutiny standard, or a much higher standard that this court applied … I don’t know of any other state court which has ruled on photo ID or a similar barrier that used such a low standard and has protected the right to vote so little.”

[soundcloud:http://soundcloud.com/fbmayer/pa-voter-id-penda-hair]

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here